Before
the Court is an Unopposed Motion to Intervene, filed by Sarah
Seruntine (“Serutine”), as tutrix for and on
behalf of her minor children, KDH, ELH, JCH and JaH,
[1]
seeking to intervene in this suit pursuant to Rule
24(b)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.[2]Seruntine asserts that prior to filing the
Motion, she “obtained from counsel for Pascual
Hernandez (“Hernandez”) and counsel for Western
Concrete Pumping, Inc. (“Western”) consent for
the relief she requests in this motion.”[3] Thus, the Motion
to Intervene is unopposed.

For the
reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Intervene is
GRANTED.[4]

I. Background

On
October 3, 2017, Hernandez and Seruntine, on behalf of their
minor children, KH, EH and JH, [5] filed a Complaint in this Court
against Western and Concord International, Ltd.
(“Concord”).[6] The original Complaint alleges that on
or about September 8, 2017, Hernandez was injured as a result
of the collapse of a concrete pumping truck manufactured by
Concord and operated by Cyril Shelmire
(“Shelmire”) on behalf of Western.[7] Specifically,
according to the allegations in the original Complaint,
Hernandez suffered injuries to his legs, back, shoulder, ribs
and other areas of his body, as well as pain and suffering,
loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish and emotional
distress, loss of earning capacity and lost wages as a result
of the negligence of Shelmire and Western[8] and due to a
design defect in the concrete pumping truck manufactured by
Concord.[9] The original Complaint further alleges
that the minor children have “lost the enjoyment of
life with their father” as a result of Concord's
design defect and the negligence of Shelmire and
Western.[10]

On
October 16, 2017, Hernandez filed an Amended Complaint,
naming only himself as a plaintiff and naming Western as the
sole defendant.[11] The Amended Complaint contains the same
underlying factual allegations as the Complaint, but further
asserts that as a result of the negligence of Shelmire and
Western, the concrete pumping truck operated by Shelmire on
behalf of Western collapsed, “striking plaintiff
Hernandez and one of his co-workers. The plaintiff's
co-worker was killed by the impact. Plaintiff Hernandez
survived, but suffered devastating
injuries.”[12]Hernandez alleges that as a result of the
accident, he suffered “multiple traumatic bodily
injuries, ” including: (1) a complex splenic
laceration; (2) multiple fractured ribs; (3) multiple lumbar
fractures; (4) fractured fibula; (5) a fractured medial
malleolus of the right tibia; (6) a hemopneumothorax; and (7)
a broken left scapula.[13] Hernandez asserts that he spent
nearly a week in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit at Our Lady
of the Lake Hospital, followed by “approximately three
weeks of in-patient therapy at the Neuromedical
Center.”[14] Hernandez also seeks damages for the
following: (1) past and future lost earnings and earning
capacity; (2) past, present and future physical pain and
suffering; (3) past, present and future mental anguish and
emotional suffering; (4) past, present and future
inconvenience, loss of intellectual gratification and/or
physical enjoyment; (5) loss of enjoyment of life; and (6)
such other damages that may be shown at trial.[15]

On
December 13, 2017, Seruntine, as tutrix for and on behalf of
her minor children, KDH, ELJ, JCH and JaH, [16] filed the
instant Motion to Intervene pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
24(b)(1)(B).[17]Seruntine asserts that the Amended
Complaint seeks “only those damages that Hernandez
himself suffered, ” that Hernandez is the biological
father of the four minor children and that, “Under
Louisiana law, these minor children have their own claims
against Western for damages they suffered as a result of the
injuries to their father.”[18] Seruntine contends that
the claims of the minor children share common questions of
law and fact as Hernandez's claim because the claims
arise out of the same underlying event. Seruntine further
asserts that she is the biological mother of the four minor
children and that she was appointed the tutrix of the minor
children on December 7, 2017 in a case entitled In Re:
Tutorship of KDH, ELH, JCH, and JaH, Case No. 18260 in
the Twenty-Third Judicial District Court for the Parish of
Ascension, Louisiana.[19] Seruntine also asserts that the clerk
of court issued Letters of Tutorship to her on December 12,
2017.[20]

II.
Law and Analysis

Seruntine,
as tutrix for and on behalf of her minor children, KDH, ELH,
JCH and JaH, seeks to intervene in this suit under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(B).[21] That section provides that on
“timely motion” the court may permit intervention
by anyone who is either (1) given an unconditional right to
intervene by federal statute; or (2) “has a claim or
defense that shares with the main action a common question of
law or fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). Seruntine does not
assert that a federal statute grants the minor children an
unconditional right to intervene. Instead, she asserts that
the claims of the minor children share common questions of
law and fact with the claims asserted by Hernandez.

A.
Timelines of the Motion to Intervene

“Whether
leave to intervene is sought under section (a) or (b) of Rule
24, the application must be timely.” Stallworth v.
Monsanto Co., 558 F.2d 257, 263 (5th Cir. 1977)
(citations omitted). The timeliness of a motion to intervene
is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial
court. McDonald v. E.J. Lavino, 430 F.2d 1065, 1071
(5th Cir. 1970). Timeliness “is not limited to
chronological considerations but ‘is to be determined
from all the circumstances.'” Stallworth,
558 F.2d at 263 (quotation omitted). The Fifth Circuit has
set forth four factors to consider when evaluating whether a
motion to intervene is timely: (1) the length of time during
which the proposed intervenor should have known of his
interest in the case before he petitioned to intervene; (2)
the extent of prejudice that those parties already in the
litigation would suffer “as a result of the would-be
intervenor's failure to apply for intervention as soon as
he actually knew or reasonably should have known of his
interest in the case;” (3) the extent of prejudice to
the proposed intervenor if he is not allowed to intervene;
and (4) the existence of “unusual circumstances
militating either for or against a determination that the
application is timely.” Ross v. Marshall, 426
F.3d 745, 754 (5th Cir. 2005) (citing Stallworth,
558 F.2d at 264-66).

Here,
the original Complaint filed on October 3, 2017[22] initially
included the claims of at least some of the minor children.
The Amended Complaint, naming only Hernandez as a plaintiff,
was filed on October 16, 2017.[23] Seruntine, as tutrix for and
on behalf of her minor children, KDH, ELJ, JCH and JaH,
sought to intervene in this matter approximately two months
later on December 13, 2017.[24] No party has asserted that the
Motion to Intervene is untimely. Most importantly, this suit
is still in its early stages. A Scheduling Order was issued
on December 27, 2017, but discovery in this matter does not
conclude until August 31, 2018-eight months from
now.[25] Further, this matter is not set for a
jury trial until June 3, 2019.[26] Accordingly, the Motion to
Intervene is timely.

A.
Permissive Intervention

Permissive
intervention is provided for by Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b) when, on
timely motion, the movant seeks intervention based on a
“conditional right to intervene” granted by
statute or “has a claim or defense that shares with the
main action a common question of law or fact.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(1)(A) & (B). In exercising its
discretion, “the court must consider whether the
intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication
of the original parties' rights.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
24(b)(3).

Here,
Seruntine, as tutrix for and on behalf of her minor children,
KDH, ELJ, JCH and JaH, asserts that the minor children should
be allowed to intervene under Rule 24(b). Seruntine alleges
that, “Because the minor children's claims and
Hernandez's claims arise out of the same event, the minor
children's claims share with the main action common
questions of law and fact.”[27] In the Amended Complaint,
Hernandez seeks to recover damages for the injuries he
sustained when a concrete pumping truck collapsed and struck
him on September 8, 2017, which Hernandez claims was due to
the alleged negligence of Western and its employee, Cyril
Shelmire.[28] According to the proposed Complaint (in
Intervention), Seruntine, as tutrix for and on behalf of her
minor children, KDH, ELJ, JCH and JaH, seeks to intervene in
this case to recover the damages that the minor children
incurred as a result of the injuries Hernandez suffered due
to the alleged negligence of Shelmire and
Western.[29] The Court finds that the claims of the
minor children have common questions of law and fact with the
main action because they, like Hernandez, allege that Western
is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employee,
Shelmire, and that Western is liable for its own negligence
that caused or contributed to the collapse of the concrete
pumping truck.[30]

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;III.
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.